Does anyone have any experience with this approach to Section 98 change management? If so, what advantages exists between the 'bulk' approach and the 'traditional'? Why has this 'bulk' approach surfaced at all?

The Board here had a lawyer introduce a proposal for essentially a 'bulk' change order at the last AGM. At the same AGM I was 'elected' a Board member.

There was no vote on the matter. That the Board brought the question to a meeting of owners, along with a lawyer, leads me to believe that they plan to proceed with it. Needless to say, I have several questions to whch answers are elusive.

As I proceed with my own understanding, part of theat search is to look for others who may have already been in this position. Hence my post here.

Sorry but I am on the telephone with Roland discussing your question as I write this post. Like Richard, we are both confused as to what you are referring to. Is it cable? A bulk improvement to units? As with Richard, we would all be happy to address your question but it is still not clear. If you would prefer not to make any particulars public, please feel free to pose the question to us directly at info@cafcor.org .

As I understand matters, a 'bulk' Section 98 agreement, which is not referenced in 'the Act', is a formal agreement between the corporation and the owners that, subject to defined written conditions, owners may proceed with say 'minor' but specified and written changes providing that the Board has agreed before the change takes place...as with any other Section 98 agreement. The difference appears to be that this bulk agreement is filed with the Registry Office which further means that any owner who signs on to it will have these changes registered against their unit. Such owners are then 'free' to make the specified changes, subject to Board clearance, at their discretion. Supposedly, this is an advantage to any future unit vendor in that the registered changes are sold as a 'benefit' to a future buyer.

Reportedly, this approach is finding favour with current unit owners but I have not yet unearthed anyone else who has met this. I still have many questions (too numerous to list here).

Jay wrote:There was no vote on the matter. That the Board brought the question to a meeting of owners, along with a lawyer, leads me to believe that they plan to proceed with it.

Thank you for clarifying that Jay. Since I have no experience at all with actions under section 98, I will reserve comment on that particular issue. I'm sure that someone with expertise will be along soon.

Your previous comment (quoted above) did tweak me to something else that I have seen recently. At one community, a section 97 notice to sell off a community asset was distributed in the middle of a very thick AGM package.

Those few owners who read their AGM packages thoroughly might have been pardoned for assuming that the issue was therefore on the agenda of the meeting. It was not.

Had not a couple of owners put the issue before the meeting by asking pointed questions, the rest at the meeting would effectively have given their tacit approval by not discussing it at all. That is how these notices work.

As it turned out, pretty much the whole board was changed that night. And the new board, mindful of the meeting's outrage at what appeared to be sneakiness, did not proceed with the noticed action.

I think the "bulk" Section 98 is actually called a blanket Section 98 agreement. It came from an article written about Section 98 and alternatives by Ronald S. Danks. Don't know the details but I am in the process of getting information about it from our lawyer.

Here is an piece from the article:"A second alternative is to expand on the concept of including multiple alterations into a single Agreement by extending that to include multiple participants. These Agreements are sometimes referred to as "blanket" or "group" Section 98 Agreements (there is no standard definition in the condominium community as yet). Simply put, this type of Section 98 Agreement contemplates allowing a number of permitted changes which are listed in the Agreement. Whatever special conditions apply to those installations should also be included. At that point, signature lines are added for all unit owners in the complex, (or at least those unit owners who have indicated some interest in executing the document). The Board of Directors would then solicit signatures on the Agreement from the various owners who wish to participate. Once registered, this Agreement would enable any of the owners who execute it, or their successors on title, to make the permitted changes subject, however, to obtaining the consent of the Board of Directors. Obtaining the consent is still necessary in order that the Board has control over the improvements to ensure compliance with any installation policies. In developing the blanket Section 98 Agreement, the Corporation should consult with their solicitor to ensure that the proper procedures are followed under Sections 97 and 98.

If an owner chooses not to participate in the blanket Section 98 Agreement, the document cannot be registered against their unit and accordingly, they will have to obtain individual consents, and individual Section 98 Agreements in respect of any future changes or alterations that they wish to make to the common elements.

The principal benefit of the blanket Section 98 Agreement is that it reduces substantially the cost to the owner. The Land Titles Office will allow the registration of such an Agreement for a one-time registration fee, (as opposed to 20 or 30 times the registration fee). The legal costs associated with such an Agreement are typically higher than for a "one on" Agreement, but are certainly not as expensive as preparing

multiple Agreements. Once the estimate of these costs are known, the total could be divided by the number of units who participate such that the costs for each unit owner may decrease to less than $100.00 and often closer to $50.00 per unit. Given that this Agreement might grant consent to make 5, 10 or even 20 permitted alterations, the cost savings to the unit owner can be substantial.

A second benefit of this is that owners who may have refused to pay the cost of an individual Section 98 Agreement, may be much more prone to execute a blanket Agreement because of its low cost. It also allows the Board to re-capture previous alterations where there may be no evidence that consent had been formally given for an alteration which is otherwise permittable." Don't know if that helps at all.

In follow-up.....I have found a brief item by Ronald Danks on his web-site in a 'Condominium Newsletter' Volume 1, Spring 2006 and the 'Updates' which mentions some of the issues with 'Blanket Section 98 Agreements'.....

I found the information on the website: www.ghccci.org. The article was called Section 98 - Are there alternatives? I am in the process of checking with our lawyer to determine whether this is a reasonable and more cost effective method to handle multiple requests. When I get more info, I will try to provide an update. Hope this helped some!